The very first restrictions on gun rights were placed on slaves and other Africans living in the Colonies, Indians, indentured servants, and other people essentially being oppressed. They were never intended to apply to free white people, until they did.

Laws banning cheap pistols were meant to disarm "the criminal element" in the impoverished immigrant communities. They were never intended to disarm honest native born Americans, until they did.

The Roosevelt Era Gangster Weapons Act (and yes I know that isn't the real name) was intended to disarm mobsters and bank robbers. It was never intended.. well you get the idea.

A similar history of misapplication can be found in the history of Civil Rights Laws. To avoid accusations of racism (and hypocrisy as I may or may not, I honestly don't know, have benefited from reverse discrimination laws and policies over the years) I acknowledge that in a law driven governmental system anti discrimination laws are a necessary part to ending racial discrimination laws just as laws enforcing discrimination were part of the old system. However, misapplication of these laws and the enforcement policies to carry them out have been at times as corrosive to people's freedom and dignity as the racism and racist laws they were meant to overthrow.

So "Health Care Reform" won't raise taxes, until it does. It won't lead to rationing, until it does. It won't deny people choice of insurance plans and doctors, until it does. It won't lead to "death panels," .. well you get the idea.

I've been a science fiction reader since about age ten or earlier. Part of SF is logically projecting where technological and sociological change will take us. Our Esteemed Publisher often complains on the decline of SF. Could it be that the paranoids' "them" who try to run our world don't want people thinking in terms of future consequences, except in terms of "Do it our (the Bosses') way or see the hell you'll bring down on yourself."?

Could it be that they don't want people thinking about how the benign "health care reforms" they are pushing will logically and predictably lead to their opponents negative claims? Could it be they don't want people to be inclined to think in terms of long range consequences of the policies the bosses are pushing, even though these consequences are obvious?

Or am I just carrying on about things that won't happen, and excuse me this sophomoric rhetorical device, until they do?